Musings On Tires

And now- the standard disclaimer.....NOTE: Large doses of "my opinion" will be handed out in gloppy dollops today. You've been forewarned.....

Tires: they are a "big" deal for cyclists...

So you may have noticed that tires for bicycles are kind of a "big deal" no matter what discipline of cycling you might enjoy. Tires are the one and only thing that touches the terrain we like to traverse, or fly over, as the case may be! Tires have a bigger influence on your riding than about any other thing concerning a bicycle you can think of. They are suspension, traction, cornering, acceleration, and stopping. They have a lot to do with speed and comfort. Essentially, if you have a great bike, and crappy tires, (or tires not being used to their potential), you are losing out on how good bicycling could be for you. Shockingly, most folks do not understand tires and how they affect all these things.

It's a huge subject, and I could go on for a while about it, but I want to focus on a few things that are misconceptions, misunderstandings, and myths. Number one amongst these has to do with tire width and pressures you run tires at. Most folks think "higher pressures are always better" and that narrower tires are always faster." Both things are myths, and most folks have a lot of misunderstandings when it comes to these ideas.

I have been a wheel/tire freak for a long time. Anytime the subject of wheels and tires came up in the old bike shop days, I listened up. From customers, to racers, company reps, magazine articles, and later on, the internet. I took in as much as I could. It  was one of the reasons in late '99/early 2000 I discovered this thing called a "29"er". (But that's a whole nuther story...) Anyway, I began to understand that a lot of folks "in the know" were running lower pressures and wider tires and going faster. Some companies were doing research, like Continental, Schwalbe, and others and were publishing reports that confirmed wider tires at lower pressures were better, faster, and more comfortable.

The bigger, the better?

It wasn't until later on  that I understood what "wider" and "lower pressure" meant for road and off road though. I had read this article from "Bicycle Quarterly" in 2008, and it really opened up my eyes to where cyclist might go for a better experience on their bikes. Well, if only they could let go of those preconceived notions and "feelings of being faster", (as noted in the linked article- many cyclists prefer the feel of high pressure in their tires, even though they are slower.) Of course- there are limits, and going beyond them will yield diminishing returns. But in general, many average cyclists, (and some avid enthusiasts and racers), are running tires too narrow and/or at too high a pressure.

Doing the gig that I do, I get to ride a lot of tires. Mostly off road tires, but the principles remain similar for road tires. I often still am amazed at how well some tires improve in performance at significantly lower air pressures than marked on the sidewalls. I was floored, for example, when this past summer it was suggested to me by a company rep that I dump 10psi from where I was at, (27-28psi), and see what I thought about a tire I was testing. The difference was night and day. Yes- I ran 17-18psi in these 29"er tires and they came alive, were faster, and way more comfortable. I had an unsuspecting rider try out the bike, and he came back with nothing but praises for the tires at these pressures. 

Wider- Lower psi: Works here too...

But old habits die hard. I know this because I have ridden with, and spoken with, a lot of riders that use what I would term as "really high" pressures and skinnier tires on gravel than they maybe should be. I've watched riders go by me, or ride beside me that are on bikes skittering, bouncing, and fish-tailing on the gravel, while others who are using lower psi and wider tires are riding perfectly straight lines.....and going just as fast. 

It is readily apparent that if said folks would be able to let go of their notions that high pressures and narrower tires were "better", their bikes wouldn't be getting out of shape, they  wouldn't be getting rattled nearly as much, and they would be saving a lot of effort/energy in the process. But for whatever reasons, they hold on to those old notions.

And this extends to pavement riders I talk with at the bike shop all the time. I guess each person is free to do what they want, but it is hard to understand why one would not check out the ever mounting evidence that your tires should be absorbing shock, wide enough to keep your bike really stable on rougher terrain, and not rock hard and narrow.

That's my take, and I know there will be a lot of folks that poo-poo the ideas put forth here, but I'm convinced that lower pressures and wider tires- to a degree- are better. I've some other thoughts on tires I may get to at some point, but that's for another day......

Musings On Tires

And now- the standard disclaimer.....NOTE: Large doses of "my opinion" will be handed out in gloppy dollops today. You've been forewarned.....

Tires: they are a "big" deal for cyclists...

So you may have noticed that tires for bicycles are kind of a "big deal" no matter what discipline of cycling you might enjoy. Tires are the one and only thing that touches the terrain we like to traverse, or fly over, as the case may be! Tires have a bigger influence on your riding than about any other thing concerning a bicycle you can think of. They are suspension, traction, cornering, acceleration, and stopping. They have a lot to do with speed and comfort. Essentially, if you have a great bike, and crappy tires, (or tires not being used to their potential), you are losing out on how good bicycling could be for you. Shockingly, most folks do not understand tires and how they affect all these things.

It's a huge subject, and I could go on for a while about it, but I want to focus on a few things that are misconceptions, misunderstandings, and myths. Number one amongst these has to do with tire width and pressures you run tires at. Most folks think "higher pressures are always better" and that narrower tires are always faster." Both things are myths, and most folks have a lot of misunderstandings when it comes to these ideas.

I have been a wheel/tire freak for a long time. Anytime the subject of wheels and tires came up in the old bike shop days, I listened up. From customers, to racers, company reps, magazine articles, and later on, the internet. I took in as much as I could. It  was one of the reasons in late '99/early 2000 I discovered this thing called a "29"er". (But that's a whole nuther story...) Anyway, I began to understand that a lot of folks "in the know" were running lower pressures and wider tires and going faster. Some companies were doing research, like Continental, Schwalbe, and others and were publishing reports that confirmed wider tires at lower pressures were better, faster, and more comfortable.

The bigger, the better?

It wasn't until later on  that I understood what "wider" and "lower pressure" meant for road and off road though. I had read this article from "Bicycle Quarterly" in 2008, and it really opened up my eyes to where cyclist might go for a better experience on their bikes. Well, if only they could let go of those preconceived notions and "feelings of being faster", (as noted in the linked article- many cyclists prefer the feel of high pressure in their tires, even though they are slower.) Of course- there are limits, and going beyond them will yield diminishing returns. But in general, many average cyclists, (and some avid enthusiasts and racers), are running tires too narrow and/or at too high a pressure.

Doing the gig that I do, I get to ride a lot of tires. Mostly off road tires, but the principles remain similar for road tires. I often still am amazed at how well some tires improve in performance at significantly lower air pressures than marked on the sidewalls. I was floored, for example, when this past summer it was suggested to me by a company rep that I dump 10psi from where I was at, (27-28psi), and see what I thought about a tire I was testing. The difference was night and day. Yes- I ran 17-18psi in these 29"er tires and they came alive, were faster, and way more comfortable. I had an unsuspecting rider try out the bike, and he came back with nothing but praises for the tires at these pressures. 

Wider- Lower psi: Works here too...

But old habits die hard. I know this because I have ridden with, and spoken with, a lot of riders that use what I would term as "really high" pressures and skinnier tires on gravel than they maybe should be. I've watched riders go by me, or ride beside me that are on bikes skittering, bouncing, and fish-tailing on the gravel, while others who are using lower psi and wider tires are riding perfectly straight lines.....and going just as fast. 

It is readily apparent that if said folks would be able to let go of their notions that high pressures and narrower tires were "better", their bikes wouldn't be getting out of shape, they  wouldn't be getting rattled nearly as much, and they would be saving a lot of effort/energy in the process. But for whatever reasons, they hold on to those old notions.

And this extends to pavement riders I talk with at the bike shop all the time. I guess each person is free to do what they want, but it is hard to understand why one would not check out the ever mounting evidence that your tires should be absorbing shock, wide enough to keep your bike really stable on rougher terrain, and not rock hard and narrow.

That's my take, and I know there will be a lot of folks that poo-poo the ideas put forth here, but I'm convinced that lower pressures and wider tires- to a degree- are better. I've some other thoughts on tires I may get to at some point, but that's for another day......

Big Wheels, Little Wheels, It Doesn't Matter- Or Does It?

Recently a new issue of Bicycle Quarterly came out. Now some may not think this quaint looking paper rag has much to offer. Maybe you've taken a peek and thought it was some off shoot of the old "retro-grouch" thing. Maybe you think it is just a denizen of 650B freaks and rando nut jobs. Well, it is, but it is a lot more than this.

The publication is pretty much the "bike geeks geek rag". It doesn't get much more "pointy-headed" and "pocket-protector-like" than "Bicycle Quarterly" for North American bicycle enthusiasts. They do experiments and tests that you'll never see in "Velo Ne....." whoops! I mean, "Velo", or in the glossy pages of "Bicycling", no matter how many times they re-do their formats or change editors. Nope. Not even close.

Why Use A 29" Wheel?

So, I got a peek at the latest issue, anyway, and the newest test was one in which the guys there were determining what wheel size was best. Okay. Got my attention! Inside, the article laid out the testing procedure and basically, what it boils down to is this: "Wheel size has no effect on power output over rough paved surfaces." Zip. Nada. (At least according to "Bicycle Quarterly" who stated that the slight differences they did measure were "statistical noise", or otherwise so small as to be insignificant.)

But you might say, "Well okay, but what about off-road?" They thought about that too. While they did not do any off road testing with 29"er wheels vs. other sizes, they did theorize that the "angle of attack" thing was so statistically small it was probably also insignificant off road.

So, why ride a 29"er wheel at all? Good question, and one I think this test inadvertently supports in the affirmative. You see, part of the testing they did was to fit the bicycle they used with an SRM power measuring crankset. According to their findings, it took basically the same amount of power, (within their standard for accounting for "statistical noise"), for any of the wheel sizes to be powered across their rumble strip test road. This tells me that one of the criticisms of 29 inch wheels isn't all that true, and possibly doesn't matter at all- that is the criticism that 29"er wheels take more energy to move than smaller sizes.

Now, at one time, the weight of a 29 inch wheel was a significant difference, and maybe then it was a detriment, but now 29 inch wheels have weights down into what was never dreamed of just several years ago. Powering up a big wheeled bike is not an issue anymore, on the high performance level, at any rate. (Witness full suspension 29"ers weighing in at sub 22lbs and winning World Cup events recently)

Interestingly, the Editor's post to lead off the latest issue of "Bicycling Quarterly" talks about the "subjective feel" versus the "objective findings" that some testing/reviews feature. In the terms of "subjective feel", I think 29 inch wheels have the advantage, but I also think there is a good reason for that. The testing on wheel size did not account for geometry, and did not account for fat tires at lower pressures. On a 29"er, the rider is in a different relationship to the axles than on a smaller wheeled bike. The testers at "Bicycling Quarterly" actually touch on this subject in terms of handling, but do not reference geometry specifically. The differences in handling play a huge role in why I happen to appreciate 29"ers. Then there is the fat tire thing.

Early on, some 29"er folks did some random testing of tire contact patches versus 26 inch wheeled bikes. Using similar tread patterns, and similar pressures, the contact patches were predictably the same area, but not the same shape. Obviously, it wasn't a huge difference, but in the area of how our tires touch and react to the trail, any differences are big, and I posit, can be felt. Traction and cornering is noticeably different on a 29"er versus smaller wheel sizes, and this is another reason to want to use a 29"er for trail riding. At least I think it works better, and so do others.

It also has to be said that designers of 29"ers are finding that the bigger wheel size demands its own, specific design characteristics. Suspension, tires, and wheels are all things that are or have been re-thought and made better due to the emergence of the 29"er. Not to mention the ever changing geometry of big wheelers, which is still being honed to this day. If wheel size didn't make a difference, then one has to wonder "why bother?" Obviously, something is going on beyond power measurement over rough grounds here.

And that is part of the conclusions reached by the "Bicycle Quarterly" piece. Obviously subjective feel on the part of the rider is an important factor. So, I would encourage you to try a 29"er if you haven't. It isn't for everybody, but it might just work for you.

Big Wheels, Little Wheels, It Doesn't Matter- Or Does It?

Recently a new issue of Bicycle Quarterly came out. Now some may not think this quaint looking paper rag has much to offer. Maybe you've taken a peek and thought it was some off shoot of the old "retro-grouch" thing. Maybe you think it is just a denizen of 650B freaks and rando nut jobs. Well, it is, but it is a lot more than this.

The publication is pretty much the "bike geeks geek rag". It doesn't get much more "pointy-headed" and "pocket-protector-like" than "Bicycle Quarterly" for North American bicycle enthusiasts. They do experiments and tests that you'll never see in "Velo Ne....." whoops! I mean, "Velo", or in the glossy pages of "Bicycling", no matter how many times they re-do their formats or change editors. Nope. Not even close.

Why Use A 29" Wheel?

So, I got a peek at the latest issue, anyway, and the newest test was one in which the guys there were determining what wheel size was best. Okay. Got my attention! Inside, the article laid out the testing procedure and basically, what it boils down to is this: "Wheel size has no effect on power output over rough paved surfaces." Zip. Nada. (At least according to "Bicycle Quarterly" who stated that the slight differences they did measure were "statistical noise", or otherwise so small as to be insignificant.)

But you might say, "Well okay, but what about off-road?" They thought about that too. While they did not do any off road testing with 29"er wheels vs. other sizes, they did theorize that the "angle of attack" thing was so statistically small it was probably also insignificant off road.

So, why ride a 29"er wheel at all? Good question, and one I think this test inadvertently supports in the affirmative. You see, part of the testing they did was to fit the bicycle they used with an SRM power measuring crankset. According to their findings, it took basically the same amount of power, (within their standard for accounting for "statistical noise"), for any of the wheel sizes to be powered across their rumble strip test road. This tells me that one of the criticisms of 29 inch wheels isn't all that true, and possibly doesn't matter at all- that is the criticism that 29"er wheels take more energy to move than smaller sizes.

Now, at one time, the weight of a 29 inch wheel was a significant difference, and maybe then it was a detriment, but now 29 inch wheels have weights down into what was never dreamed of just several years ago. Powering up a big wheeled bike is not an issue anymore, on the high performance level, at any rate. (Witness full suspension 29"ers weighing in at sub 22lbs and winning World Cup events recently)

Interestingly, the Editor's post to lead off the latest issue of "Bicycling Quarterly" talks about the "subjective feel" versus the "objective findings" that some testing/reviews feature. In the terms of "subjective feel", I think 29 inch wheels have the advantage, but I also think there is a good reason for that. The testing on wheel size did not account for geometry, and did not account for fat tires at lower pressures. On a 29"er, the rider is in a different relationship to the axles than on a smaller wheeled bike. The testers at "Bicycling Quarterly" actually touch on this subject in terms of handling, but do not reference geometry specifically. The differences in handling play a huge role in why I happen to appreciate 29"ers. Then there is the fat tire thing.

Early on, some 29"er folks did some random testing of tire contact patches versus 26 inch wheeled bikes. Using similar tread patterns, and similar pressures, the contact patches were predictably the same area, but not the same shape. Obviously, it wasn't a huge difference, but in the area of how our tires touch and react to the trail, any differences are big, and I posit, can be felt. Traction and cornering is noticeably different on a 29"er versus smaller wheel sizes, and this is another reason to want to use a 29"er for trail riding. At least I think it works better, and so do others.

It also has to be said that designers of 29"ers are finding that the bigger wheel size demands its own, specific design characteristics. Suspension, tires, and wheels are all things that are or have been re-thought and made better due to the emergence of the 29"er. Not to mention the ever changing geometry of big wheelers, which is still being honed to this day. If wheel size didn't make a difference, then one has to wonder "why bother?" Obviously, something is going on beyond power measurement over rough grounds here.

And that is part of the conclusions reached by the "Bicycle Quarterly" piece. Obviously subjective feel on the part of the rider is an important factor. So, I would encourage you to try a 29"er if you haven't. It isn't for everybody, but it might just work for you.